as a PDF

Issues of partial credit in mathematical
assessment by computer
C. E. Beevers, D. G. Wild, G. R. McGuine, D.J. Fiddes and M.A.Youngson
Department of Mathematics, Heriot-Watt University, email: c.e.beevers@hw.ac.uk
The CALM Project for Computer Aided Learning in Mathematics has operated at HeriotWatt University since 1985. From the beginning CALM has featured assessment in its
programs (Beevers, Cherry, Foster and McGuire, 1991), and enabled both students and
teachers to view progress in formative assessment The computer can play a role in at least
four types of assessment: diagnostic, self-test, continuous and grading assessment. The
TLTP project Mathwise employs the computer in three of these roles. In 1994 CALM
reported on an educational experiment in which the computer was used for the first time to
grade, in part, the learning of a large class of service mathematics students (Beevers,
McGuire, Stirling and Wild ,1995), using the Mathwise assessment template. At that time
the main issues identified were those of 'partial credit' and communication between the
student and the computer. These educational points were addressed in the next phase of the
CALM Project in which the commercial testing program Interactive PastPapers was
developed. The main aim of this paper is to describe how Interactive Past Papers has been
able to incorporate some approaches to partial credit which has helped to alleviate student
worries on these issues. Background information on other features in Interactive
PastPapers is also included to provide context for the discussion.
Introduction
The CALM Project for Computer Aided Learning in Mathematics started at Heriot-Watt
University in 1985. hi the first phase of the project CAL materials were created in calculus with
each topic structured around Theory, Worked Examples, Motivating Examples and a Test.
Students chose most readily to work through the Test section questions, welcoming the chance
to assess their own progress. In addition, the teachers could view class progress. The weekly
tests were designed from banks of questions with randomized parameters in each question.
These questions prompted students for a mathematical answer and asked them to type in the
response on one line using a style similar to computer languages such as Pascal. Students of
engineering and science took only a short time to adjust to this approach. The routines
developed in those early stages of CALM meant that testing could be more meaningful and did
not rely on the more usual multiple-choice format favoured by so many computer projects. Over
26
ALT-J
Volume 7 Number I
the years 1989-1992 CALM developed techniques to trap predictable wrong answers and this
form of self-testing proved to be a powerful learning aid for students. Nevertheless, some
problems which are discussed in greater detail in later sections remained.
Despite these problems the assessment template which CALM created was used as a testing
mechanism in collaborative projects such as the TLTP project, called Mathwise, and the
SUMSMAN project. For further details see Harding and Quinney (1996), Beevers, Maciocia,
Prince and Scott (1996), Beevers and Scott (1998) and Beevers, Bishop and Quinney (1998).
Meanwhile the CALM project focused on the production of a commercial project, Interactive
PastPapers (IPP), aided by the award of a Higher Education Tercentenary prize from the Bank
of Scotland. Based on the work of Wild (1995) the CALM Group were able to investigate the
solutions to problems such as:
•
providing partial credit where students receive recognition for partly-correct or
idiosyncratically expressed answers;
•
coping with difficulties students experience when they input answers.
See Wild, Beevers, Fiddes, McGuire, and Youngson (1997) and McGuire, Wild, Beevers,
Fiddes, and Youngson (1998) for further details.
The features of IPP relating to these issues will be described later after a discussion of some of
the educational issues raised by using computer assessment. The paper concludes with a
summary of the way ahead in this area.
Educational discussion
Students of mathematics can be assessed in a number of ways. The computer can play a role in
at least four types of assessment:
•
diagnostic tests where the emphasis is on helping students discover their strengths and
weaknesses;
•
self-tests in which the emphasis is on rapid feedback and which can be used to pick out
predictable wrong answers;
•
continuous assessment in which students and teachers alike can see how mathematical
topics are being absorbed;
•
grading assessment in which the computer is used in the setting and marking of
examinations.
Over the years there has been much work in the area of diagnostic testing with examples like
Diagnosis (Appleby, Samuels and Treasure-Jones, 1997). Diagnostic testing using student
profiling has been studied by Bridges and Hibberd (1994). This latter work is forming the basis
of some current work on Web delivery of diagnostic tests.
Self-testing is a feature of the work of Harding, Lay, Moule, and Quinney (1995) in the
Renaissance Project. CALM used this approach too in its pre-university mathematics
courseware units, where predictable wrong answers were trapped and fast feedback helped
students consolidate their learning. Self-tests are also a feature of the many Mathwise modules
developed during the TLTP initiative.
27
C. E. Beevers et 0/
Issues of partial credit in mathematical assessment by computer
Continuous assessment was the driving force in the first CALM Project with weekly tests
helping the students assess their own progress through the material. Brunei, Portsmouth and
Glasgow Caledonian Universities have used a similar approach with QuestionMark software
and the CALMAT units (McCabe, 1995; Tabor, 1993).
Grading assessment by computer has been pioneered at Heriot-Watt University initially using
the Mathwise assessment mechanism but latterly with the IPP assessment engine delivered over
the Web. Napier University under the SUMSMAN Project are employing Mathwise to assess
their students and this is starting in other Scottish universities (Ashworth, 1998).
The commercial implementation of IPP has a number of features that help with the different
types of assessment described above. For example, diagnostic tests can be set up using the
multiple-choice type of question. The marks recording service offered by IPP is then able to
supply information on the strengths and weaknesses of individual students.
IPP has three modes of delivery:
1. Help mode where students can reveal answers if they are stuck on a particular part;
2. Practice mode in which the users are given visible feedback on the correctness of answers as
they proceed through a question;
3. Examination mode in which the computer marks the question but no visible sign is shown
on screen.
These three modes simulate self-test, continuous assessment and grading assessment respectively.
Questions can be chosen from banks of typical examples randomly, by topic or by particular
question, thus providing different forms of testing at different times of the learning cycle. When
a test has been chosen the student can browse the questions as in a conventionally written
examination before moving on to answer a question. In the following section those aspects of
IPP which deal with problems of partial credit and student input difficulties are considered.
Partial credit
When a student gets the same answer as the examiner to a mathematical question, assigning
marks for the answer is simple both for a human and a computer. However, deciding how to
assign marks to other answers for which there is not a one-to-one correspondence may be
tackled differently by humans and computers.
Aspects of partial credit
A lack of confidence in the software's ability to assess answers has led to some student anxiety
about whether their results in a computer examination accurately reflect their knowledge.
Particular issues of greatest concern are:
•
the computer input of a mathematical answer being interpreted by the computer in a
different manner from that which the student intended;
•
an answer being correct but in the wrong format;
•
recognition of a numerical approximation to the correct answer;
28
ALT-J
•
provision for a student giving one of a pair of answers correctly;
•
provision for a student answering a part of the question but not all of it.
Volume 7 Number I
The first of these has been tackled in IPP by the use of an Input Tool. This device shows the
student how a one-line mathematical entry typed in by a student is being interpreted by the
computer as the typing proceeds. For example, the student may wish the answer to b e ^ . The
student types in l/2x and the Input Tool window shows this as £.
This shows that the computer has interpreted this in a different way from that which the student
intended, so it is possible to correct the input to 1/(2*) which appears in the Input Tool window
asl.
In addition, the Input Tool provides feedback on the syntax of expressions such as missing
brackets and the misuse of operands.
Turning to the second of these items, answers which are close to the correct one but do not take
the approved form can be awarded partial credit as in the following example. If the answer to a
problem is 1/2 and the student types 0.5 then the message can be displayed:
Your answer is correct but in the wrong format, give your answer as a fraction - 50% partial
credit.
IPP tries to capture good mathematical practice by looking for answers in a compact form. So, a
maximum length can be specified and students awarded partial credit for their answer if it is
close to the correct answer but not in the most compact form.
A similar approach works for the third of these topics in which partial credit is given for
answers which contain a numerical approximation to the correct answer. If desired a warning
message can be issued as in the following example. If the correct answer to a question is ^2 the
student who types in the numerical approximation 1.414 (which is correct to three decimal
places) might receive the message:
Your answer should contain a square root - 75% partial credit.
From the last two examples it can be seen that the percentage of partial credit given can vary at
the examiner's discretion.
Concerning the fourth of these topics, many questions in IPP require answers in the form of
unordered and ordered linked pairs (or triples). Examples of such questions are:
What are the factors of x2 - 5x + 6 ?
Find the co-ordinates of the y-intercept of the line,y = 3x + 7.
The first question has answers x - 2 and x - 3 which can be given in any order, whereas the
second question has the answer (0,7) in which the order is important. If one of these answers is
correct then appropriate partial credit can be awarded.
A similar approach can deal with questions which require answers in scientific notation of the
form a* 10b with a and b as an ordered linked pair and algebraic fractions x/y with x andy again
as an ordered pair.
29
C. £ Beevers et al
Issues of partial credit in mathematical assessment by computer
The last issue is perhaps the most difficult to deal with. As an example of this type consider the
question:
Find the derivative of cos^c2)
To do this question (whose correct answer is -2xsin(3?)), the student needs to know the correct
rule of differentiation to apply and the derivative of two simpler functions. If a student were to
answer 2xsin(x2) in which the correct rule has been identified and the derivative of one of the
two functions has been correctly obtained, most human examiners would consider this answer
worthy of some credit. CALM used a device in the self-assessment part of the pre-universiry
CALM units in which predictable wrong answers were programmed into trapped errors so that
such predictable answers could carry appropriate learning messages. However it could prove
difficult to list all the possible wrong answers which the student came up with!
Key-steps and partial credit
IPP has questions which have been set using key-steps. These key-steps have been broken down
into further sub-sets. It is up to the students to decide whether they wish to answer these subsets. A less confident student can tackle a question by asking for the sub-sets which would
possibly enable some marks to be picked up. However in such cases the student will take
longer to answer the question but in Help or Practice mode this can aid the learning process. In
Exam mode a student has to decide whether the extra tune is worthwhile compared with the
partial credit on offer in that question. This method of awarding partial credit has been steadily
evolving over the last few years since the original experiment in 1994 was reported by Beevers,
McGuire, Stirling and Wild (1995). Whatever the mode, this extra flexibility has proved
popular with students and has been introduced after much student feedback on earlier versions
of the CALM test.
IPP also provides an opportunity to deliver tests over the Web. So, in the winter term of 1997, two
classes with in excess of 350 undergraduates were introduced to tests using IPP. Of the two classes
using the IPP delivery over the Web the syllabus for the first class of over 200 students covered
topics in differentiation including hyperbolic equations, parametric equations, the McLaurin and
Taylor series and integration topics including standard integrals, application to differential
equations, area under curves, methods of substitution and integration by parts. Two tests were
planned with each one carrying a mark of 10 per cent. It was decided to give the students the use
of the program in Practice mode so that they could see if they had errors as they went along.
The second class of about 150 science and engineering undergraduates took a course which
covers topics in the theory and application of differentiation and aspects of complex numbers.
In this second class only one computer test was set carrying a credit of 10 per cent of the
module mark. Questions were set with one, two or three key steps. A student who could answer
the question in the required number of steps could do so and move to the next question.
However, each key step could be broken down into at most a further three sub-steps and the
student who chose to tackle the question by answering every sub-step could score partial credit
as the part answers are supplied. However, this had to be balanced in a timed summative test
when the overall time to complete the examination is fixed. Clearly the design of the key-steps
and sub-sets was critical in ensuring that students who could not tackle the entire question could
get as much credit as they deserved for the parts they could do.
30
ALT-J
Volume 7 Number I
Towards an online examination for mathematics
It is now possible in a mathematical test to resolve the main difficulties of examining a student
using the computer to set and mark the test. The use of random parameters in each question
ensures that each student receives a test of similar standard, but cheating is impractical since
neighbouring screens will carry different versions of the same question and hence will have
different answers.
The design of the Input Tool has minimized the misinterpretation between student and
computer. Moreover, the Input Tool carries an excellent syntax checker so that students are
guided to form meaningful expressions. The Input Tool creates a dynamic display which
provides immediate visual feedback on how the computer is understanding the student's input.
As in many other testing situations if the student has practised with the use of the Input Tool
then the questions asked on the day of the test hold little fear.
It is in the area of partial credit that most advances have been made. Through the design of
questions and the introduction of key-steps, the less confident students can choose to take the
question in smaller steps whereas the confident, careful student can move through a question
more rapidly. Partial answers in the wrong format can carry some credit and some correct
answers from a list can also be rewarded in part. Finally, the ability to deal with answers which
are not correct can to some extent be done using key-steps and sub-steps.
So what remains to stop the creation of an on-line test remotely on demand? The assurance that
the person sitting the test is the person they say they are! Such security issues remain the major
stumbling-block to the setting and marking of a test remotely by computer. Some progress in
dealing electronically with the issue of security is possible. Students can be screened by name,
location and machine and, provided there is some validation of an individual's identity by a
human checker, then an examination can be delivered. Answers can be recorded and updated at
every input to prevent loss of results by electronic breakdown and results can be encrypted if
necessary. It may be that the use of a video camera together with image«processing techniques
can combine to remove even this restriction in the future (Daugman, 1997).
References
Appleby, J., Samuels P. and Treasure-Jones, T. (1997), 'Diagnosis: a knowledge based
diagnostic test of basic mathematical skills', Computers and Education, 28, 113-33.
Ashworth, M. (1998), 'Maths resources on the Scottish MANs', CTI Maths and Stats
Newsletter, 9, 32.
Beevers, C. E., and Scott, T. D. (1998), 'SUMSMAN-D collaboration between Scottish universities', Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology and Collegiate
Mathematics, Chicago, 41-4.
Beevers, C. E., Bishop, P. and Quinney, D. (1998), 'Mathwise diagnostic testing and assessment', CITech, 191-205.
Beevers, C. E., Cherry, B. G., Foster, M. G. and McGuire, G. R. (1991), Software Tools for
Computer Aided Learning in Mathematics, Ashgate Publishing Company.
31
C. E. Beevers et al
Issues of partial credit in mathematical assessment by computer
Beevers, C. E., Maciocia, A., Prince, A. R. and Scott, T. D. (1996), 'Pooling mathematical
resources', Active Learning, 5, 41-2.
Beevers, C. E., McGuire, G. R., Stirling, G. and Wild, D. G. (1995), 'Mathematical ability
assessed by computer', Computers and Education, 25, 123-32.
Bridges, S. and Hibberd, S. (1994), 'Construction and implementation of a computer-based
diagnostic test', CTI Maths and Stats Newsletter, 5.
Daugman, J. (1997), 'Face and gesture recognition: overview', IEEE Transactions on Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19 (7), 675-6.
Harding, R. D. and Quinney, D. (1996), 'Mathwise and the UK Mathematics Courseware
Consortium', Active Learning, 4, 53-7.
Harding, R. D., Lay, S. W., Moule, H. and Quinney, D. (1995), 'A mathematical toolkit for
interactive hypertext courseware: part of the mathematics experience with the Renaissance
Project', Computers and Education, 24, 127.
McCabe, M. (1995), 'Designer software for mathematics assessment', CTI Maths and Stats
Newsletter, 6, 11-16.
McGuire, G. R., Wild, D. G., Beevers, C. E., Fiddes, D. J. and Youngson, M. A. (1998),
'Computer aided learning in mathematics - Highers CALM Units and Interactive PastPapers',
Scottish Mathematical Council Journal, 27, 53-7.
Tabor, J. (1993), 'Review of CALMAT', CTI Maths and Stats Newsletter, 4 (1), 14-18.
Wild, D. G. (1995), 'Computer assessment in mathematics', Ph.D. thesis, Heriot-Watt
University.
Wild, D. G., Beevers, C. E., Fiddes, D. I., McGuire, G. R. and Youngson, M. A. (1997),
Interactive PastPapers for A-Level and Higher Mathematics, Glasgow: Lander Educational
Software.
32